Lynne - I'd love to get a hard copy of Dr. Noakes book also. I have it on Kindle, but it's not quite the same, and i'd love to have it as a reference long term (not sure the Kindle will reach my expiration date).

You're missing the point. You'll probably find it near impossible to make meaningful inputs without investigating the topic. Don't take my word for any of this, but don't shoot from the hip blindfolded either. You might want to start with the British Journal of Sport's Medicine's indictment of Gatorade and the ACSM - if you don't have the time to really read Noakes book. It's not an easy read for many and will take more than a few days to intelligently work through...

What I read from this is that you're calling anyone that isn't as passionate about your "war" on so-called "big soda" as yourself uneducated or unintelligent. You also wrongfully assume I haven't read "Waterlogged", and wrong to assume that it's so complex that a person like myself, whom you have no exposure to beyond this board and a facebook search, would have trouble understanding.

We all get to see companies either make mistakes or lie, or some blend of the two. Doctors used to endorse tobacco products, undoubtedly leading to thousands of deaths due to cancer, but the BEST MEDICAL SCIENCE at the time pointed to niccotine being good for the heart, and smoking had thousands of years of historical therapeutic use. And then we learned something new, and we have warning labels. That's not to say that "big tobacco" isn't guilty of corruption and knowingly producing a dangerous product.

But it's a crime I don't care to get passionate about, as cigarette use honestly doesn't effect me. It doesn't matter to me whether pepsi has rat poison in it or HFCS, I haven't had a soda since 1994. It doesn't matter to me whether tobacco products can be linked to cancer or not, I don't smoke and don't condone the practice in others. The indication of something bad for us is there, so why play with it?

Over-hydration deaths by blindly following recommendations are the same effect in my eyes. 20yrs ago when I lived on a coaches recommendation of a gallon of water per day, and a half gallon at practice, I felt like crap, so I cut back. As a wrestler, we were tracking water and weight gains, so I detailed closely how much I was taking in. I cut back, and about a pound of water was my "sweetspot". Low and behold, turns out that it's not by coincidence, as modern science revealed information about absoprtion rates, and now any endurance triathloner worth their salt will tell you that it's "20oz per hour".

As I stated before, know what you're drinking, and why you're drinking it, and assume anyone that profits from information skewed the information in their favor, and assume that anyone that DOESN'T profit from information may have made a mistake.

As someone who deals with various sodium related issues on a pretty regular basis(central diabetes insipidus, SIADH, cerebral salt wasting) in the setting of critical care and brain injury, Gatorade is essentially free water as far as the serum sodium concerned. The amount of sodium and electrolytes is pretty negligible.

We do also see water intoxication(or exercise induce hyponatremia/encephalopathy) as it causes pretty nasty cerebral edema and brain death if severe enough.

As best I can tell, your disagreement is not factual but personal. Gatorade's promotion of flawed hydration science and the deaths and sickness that followed do not bother you.

While I disagree, I doubt there's a logical means by which I can convince you to care about deaths from over-drinking.

I can only ask you this:

Knowing that the ACSM has promoted flawed hydration science, funded by Gatorade, that led to the deaths of at least a dozen and thousands of cases of hyponatremia, do you think the ACSM should continue to enjoy its place of authority in American exercise science?

Having committed such a base error, on what basis can the ACSM justify its continued existence?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dakota Base

What I read from this is that you're calling anyone that isn't as passionate about your "war" on so-called "big soda" as yourself uneducated or unintelligent. You also wrongfully assume I haven't read "Waterlogged", and wrong to assume that it's so complex that a person like myself, whom you have no exposure to beyond this board and a facebook search, would have trouble understanding.

We all get to see companies either make mistakes or lie, or some blend of the two. Doctors used to endorse tobacco products, undoubtedly leading to thousands of deaths due to cancer, but the BEST MEDICAL SCIENCE at the time pointed to niccotine being good for the heart, and smoking had thousands of years of historical therapeutic use. And then we learned something new, and we have warning labels. That's not to say that "big tobacco" isn't guilty of corruption and knowingly producing a dangerous product.

But it's a crime I don't care to get passionate about, as cigarette use honestly doesn't effect me. It doesn't matter to me whether pepsi has rat poison in it or HFCS, I haven't had a soda since 1994. It doesn't matter to me whether tobacco products can be linked to cancer or not, I don't smoke and don't condone the practice in others. The indication of something bad for us is there, so why play with it?

Over-hydration deaths by blindly following recommendations are the same effect in my eyes. 20yrs ago when I lived on a coaches recommendation of a gallon of water per day, and a half gallon at practice, I felt like crap, so I cut back. As a wrestler, we were tracking water and weight gains, so I detailed closely how much I was taking in. I cut back, and about a pound of water was my "sweetspot". Low and behold, turns out that it's not by coincidence, as modern science revealed information about absoprtion rates, and now any endurance triathloner worth their salt will tell you that it's "20oz per hour".

As I stated before, know what you're drinking, and why you're drinking it, and assume anyone that profits from information skewed the information in their favor, and assume that anyone that DOESN'T profit from information may have made a mistake.

There was a study (quite recent) that used athletes and rehydrated them by IV so they could not 'taste' what they were 'drinking'.

Those who just got water performed as well as those who got some fancy electrolyte concoction.

Despite what many think, intravenous fluids are inferior to oral fluids in terms if hydration...by a lot. Not knocking what you said (although there could be flaws due to the fact that IVs already don't work that well), just wanted to point that out to some who might think IV is better.